Case Management System for the Future– the LOVISA experience

Morten S Hagedal Project Manager

A modern Case Management System …1. should be based on case flow, steering each case trough the court

2. should open for a flexible way of managing each case individually, based on the characteristics of the individual case, so the case might be brought to an end within a reasonable and foreseeable time frame

3. should be integrated with e-filing, in developing e-courts, where the parties are able to integrate their own case management system with the case management system of the courts, and also take responsibility for trivial managing of the case.

4. should be a part of an integrated criminal justice chain

5. needs a strong involvement from judges, court administrators and administrative staff to succeed, both in developing new business procedures and getting acceptance from these groups in the courts

Norway …

App 4,5 mill inhabitants 324 220 km2

GDP/CapitaApp $40 000

Oil export3 466 000 bbl/day

The information society – in Norway? 60% of households

have Internet access 30% of households

have broadband access

75% of pop. have used Internet the last 3 months

Public Sector Ministry of

Modernisation E-Norway 2009

Ministry of Justice

The Norwegian Judiciary

One jurisdiction Simple court structure

District courts Courts of appeal Supreme Court

National Courts Administration

Established in 2002

The size of the District Courts

Number of courts Permanent judges Deputy judges Administrative staff

39 1 1-2 3-6,5

25 2 1-2,5 4-16,5

7 3 1-2 6,5-25,5

6 4 1-3 8,5-35,5

3 5 2-5 12-46

2 6 2 13-14,8

8 7-12 0-3 10,5-73

1 17 3 18,5

1 66 19 75,5

Technological development in the Norwegian Judiciary – I First wave

Late 80-ies early 90-ies

Private Public Sector initiative

Technical infrastructure

Land Registry Case Management

System Accounting Software

Time standards Reduction of

administrative staff

Technological development in the Norwegian Judiciary – II Second wave:

Strategy from 1997 Focusing on goals New system portfolio

Should be the basis for e-courts

WAN A new CMS for the

judiciary Land Registry System Common portal on the

web Intranet E-mail Accounting system

The LOVISA-project Development (2001 – 2004) Introduction in the judiciary (2001 – 2005)

Budget NOK 173 mill / USD 27,6 mill 78% on development 22% on introduction to the courts

Personal resources Total 75 persons

Judges, administrative staff, technical staff, consultant At the most 50 persons

Agreement with an external developer Computas AS Based on PS 2000

Analysis of needs

Approval and

Completion phase

Detailed planning Analysis and design

Testing Development

Progress

Iterative construction phase

CP1

CPn CP2

HMP 0 Signing of Contract

Solution

Description

HMP 1 Appoved Solution

-

Description

HMP 2 Delivery ready

for Approval

HMP 3 Approved

Delivery

PS2000 Contract Standard

PS 2000 Contract Standard Increased efficiency of the procurement and tender

process Development model based on documented ”best

practice” Defined deployment model, based on stage by stage,

iterative processes Benefits from increased understanding of

requirements and challenges Governs both parties’ obligations Integrated co-operation between customer and vendor Risk management included Incentive schemes (target pricing) included as a

motivating factor Procedures for conflict resolution with an expert as a

mediator

Characteristics

vision and goals

Secure the quality of the case management Achieve new and goals with the same resources

as before Better service More modern and attractive tools Easier integration with other ICT systems

To meet the reality of tomorrow with the tools of tomorrow

Journal / Archive

Registries

External

Internal

User admin Scheduling

Court feecalculation

Physicaldocuments

Electronicdocuments

Officeapplications

StatisticsReports

Case flow

Exchange / Outlook

Externalservices

– what do the users say?

I think this will be good, when we finally learn the

system

After all the negative rumours, I am positively surprised. When we get the necessary routine,

this will be good

LOVISA is fun!

In my view LOVISA is an outstanding system. It has probably given the

administrative staff more work, but the system gives more information in return.

It is more challenging for the administrative staff, which, in my view, in

positive. I feel that my capacity, as a judge, has increased to a large extent, which has improved the effectiveness.

We are doing things the way we used to …

It is positive that we had to scrutinize our routines in

lieu of LOVISA. The internal workflow is clear for

everybody, and we have got written “instructions”.

The quality assurance vests in the last hand with the user, i.e. the

employee.

LOVISA is improving, and there is a positive effect as LOVISA

proposes the correct step when actions are not taken (by parties) at the proper time. This implies quality assurance, and a more

uniform way of operation in different courts.

The reuse of personal data can

improve, i.a. in judgements and

court hearing reports.

I am not sure that the time used on

registration is justified by the

output.

As a judge, LOVISA gives me

good access to information on the handling of a case.

LOVISA is the most stupid, the most unmanageable computer system ever

developed. Throw it out, get the old one back, and my effectiveness will increase with 25 % and my comfort

with 50 %.

The system gives a nice overview – it has a

potential, but – it is time consuming, involves many unnecessary operations,

slow access and technical instability.

LOVISA is probably an improvement for the courts and the administrative staff,

but in my view not for the judges.

Thesis one

a modern case management system should be based on case flow, steering each case trough the court

Modelling the case flow

The procedural regulation The case from A to Z

Main tracks Deviations from the main

tracks

Transfer tedious tasks from judges and administrative staff to a CMS

24.05.2004Sist oppdatert: Tove

Ankeprøving

Skriv utkast til avgjørelseSaksbehandler

Registrer anke i straffesakSaksbehandler

Søk frem og knytt relasjon tiltingrettens sakRegistrer om strafferammener over 6 årRegistrer parterRegistrer kravRegistrer hva saken gjelderRegistrer saken på 1.håndsdommerRegistrer saken på 2.håndsdommerRegistrer saken på 3.håndsdommerSkriv ut saksforsideSend saken videre til 1.håndsdommer

Velg avgjørelse fra 1.instanssakenVelg avgjørelsen fra denopprinnelige ankesaken

Brukes vedomgjøringsbegjæringer.Vises bare hvisdet finnes enrelasjon tilopprinneligankesak.

Skriv utkast til avgjørelse

153,156,161,151,155,157,164,168,166,165,167,967,968,969

Ferdigstillavgjørelsesdokument

Redigeravgjørelsesdokument(fletter innavgjørelsesinformasjon)

Registrer avgjørelsen

Send saken videre

Skal utkastetkontrolleres av

dommer?

Kontroller utkast til avgjørelseDommer

Kontroller utkast tilavgjørelse

Send videre tilsaksbehandler

JaRegistrer avgjørelseSaksbehandler

Registrer avgjørelseRedigeravgjørelsesdokument

Nei

FerdigstillavgjørelsesdokumentVurder offentlighetSend avgjørelsen til øvrigedommere

Velgdommer

Rediger avgjørelseSaksbehandler

Rediger avgjørelseSend utkast tilbake til1.håndsdommer

Skal utkastetrettes opp av

saksbehandler?

Ja

Nei

Lås avgjørelsesdokumentFå ny oppgav for viderebehandling av saken

HenvistSaksbehandler

Opprett og skrivoversendelsesbrev

160,162

Kontroller ny kategoriseringav saken

ForkynningRegistrer nytt krav omankebehandling

Opprettes automatisk med desamme subkravene somankeprøvingskravet

Skriv ut saksforside

Nektet fremmetSaksbehandler

Kontroller utkast tilavgjørelse

Send videre tilsaksbehandler

FerdigstillavgjørelsesdokumentVurder offentlighetSend avgjørelsen til øvrigedommere

Masseflettoversendelsesbrev

Registrer ny saksbehandlerSend saken til viderebehandling

Det er reg. Resultatav typen: Henvisteller delvis henvist

Det er registrertresultat av typen Nektet fremmet

Forkynning (felles)Saksbeha

ndler

Bare andreresultattyper

Innkomstoppgaver(Anke i straffesak)

Saksbehandler

Forebered sak og skrivsilingsnotat

1. håndsdommer

Kontroller saksopplysningerKontroller at anken oppfyllerde formelle kravVurder oppnevning avforsvarer

Skriv silingsnotatRegistrer saken på2.håndsdommerSend videre til2.håndsdommerSend videre til3.håndsdommer

Er det nødvendig å ha denneaktiviteten her når 1.håndsdommer kun får denneoppgaven første gangsilingsnotat skal skrives?

Send videre tilsaksbehandler

Vurder andresaksbehandlingsspørsmål

Skriv silingsnotat1. , 2. eller 3.

håndsdommer

Rediger silingsnotatRegistrer saken på2.håndsdommer

Vises ikke for2.håndsdommer

Send videre til2.håndsdommer Vises ikke for

2.håndsdommerSend videre til3.håndsdommer

Vises ikke for3.håndsdommer

Send videre tilsaksbehandler

Registrer saken på3.håndsdommer

Vises ikke for3.håndsdommer

Send videre til1.håndsdommer

Vises ikke for1.håndsdommer

How do we present the case flow to the user?

Thesis two

a modern case management system should open for a flexible way of managing each case individually, based on the characteristics of the individual case, so the case might be brought to an end within a reasonable and foreseeable time frame

Adapting the general case flow to one specific case. Focus on active case management – by

the judgeAssessment of the case by the judge at

appropriate times to decide the management of the case, with deadlines, and activities.

Develop relevant tools to actively manage each case

The new Norwegian Civil Procedure Act – s. 9-4a) whether judicial mediation or mediation at a court sitting should be pursued, b) whether the case should be dealt with pursuant to special provisions, c) whether court sittings shall be held during the preparation of the case and

whether the case maybe ruled on following such court sitting, d) whether written submissions shall be made as part of the basis for ruling on

the case, e) whether the proceedings of the case should be split, f) review of the presentation of evidence, including whether access to

evidence, production of evidence or judicial inspection of a site is being requested, whether evidence shall be secured and whether an expert should be appointed,

g) whether final written submissions shall be made, h) setting the date of the main hearing, which date shall fall within 6 months of

the submission of the writ of summons, unless special circumstances otherwise require,

i) whether expert or regular lay judges shall be appointed, and j) other issues of importance to the preparation of the case.

GANTT diagram? Flow Chart?

Thesis three

a modern case management system should be integrated with e-filing, in developing e-courts, where the parties are able to integrate their own case management system with the case management system of the courts, and also take responsibility for trivial managing of the case.

E-filing – e-courts – e-documents – e-services Electronic transfer of documents Formats Accessibility External services

Why?

Communication Access Reuse of data

Identifying parties, etc Reuse of contents of

documents Document

management Data management

Post Court registry Retyping

Access to the physical file

Incoming Liquidation

The Register of Business Enterprises

The Register of Company Accounts

XML Webservices

Outgoing Liquidation

The Register of Bankruptcies

All liquidations

and e-communication

External services

Court listingswww.domstol.no

Transfer of cases to legal information retrieval systemsToday ftp etc

www.lovdata.noFuture (2006)

Compliance with the directive on reuse of public sector information (2003/98/EC)

Web services solution

How can it be done?

Thesis four

a modern case management system should be a part of an integrated criminal justice chain

Organisational question

Police Prosecution Prisons Probation authority

and criminal justice information exchange

Outgoing Public prosecutor Prison and probation

services

Incoming Public prosecutor XML SMPT transfer Mickey Mouse solution

Thesis five

a modern case management system needs a strong involvement from judges, court administrators and administrative staff to succeed, both in developing new business procedures and getting acceptance from these groups in the courts

Why?

Development The judges and

administrative staff are the users of the system

They are probably the best to define the system At least parts thereof

Use They are humans,

with feelings They shall use the

system

Introduction of a new system in a court Resistance to change Motivation Understanding

Shall it be mandatory to use the system?

How will the system effect the workflow for The administrative

staff The judges

Management of the court(s)

How does the attitude of the court management affect the motivation and user perception of a CMS?

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

Management Enough time Benefit - overview Benefit - QA Benefit - reuse

Av

era

ge Total

Court 1

Court 2

and the future?

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Deploytment of ICT over timeE-communication

Integration with external applications

Integration with other "internalapplications"

SOA

Access to registers

LOVISA

Citrix

Court Net

UNIX-sulutions

and the future?

Life Cycle Costs Further development Integration E-filing

NOK 10 mill / USD 1,6 mill Active case management

NOK 7 mill / USD 1,1 mill Continuous work on

organisational change in the courts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Tid

Ko

stn

ad

Utviklings- / videreutviklingskostnad Vedlikeholdskostnad